Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

While I appreciate the Minister of State has tabled an amendment to respond to the concerns raised, it is too qualified. I wish to press this matter because it relates concretely to how the Government and the Minister will be influenced by the right balance of stakeholders in forestry. The amendment tabled by the Minister of State states "the Minister shall give due consideration to the desirability of the committee’s membership reflecting the social, economic and environmental interests". In other words, the Minister will consider whether it is desirable to have a balance. That is pretty weak, as how could it not be desirable to have a balance? The Minister should not have the discretion to decide he or she does not wish to have a balance but only wants the industry people. This is how the Minister of State's amendment is worded, whereas the amendment I tabled states there must be a balance. The Minister of State's amendment correctly provides for a balance between men and women, which is very specific, but on the issue of the balance in respect of social, economic and environmental factors, it is up to the Minister as to whether he or she will have a balance.

That is a way out of having a balance and this is not simply an abstract argument because there are serious questions about the model of forestry that is being pursued and whether too often, albeit not in all circumstances, the model being pursued is one that does not really engage properly with the public and does not take on board alternative points of view. Moreover, it is overly geared, and I suspect will become ever-increasingly geared, towards the interests of big developers in industrial wind turbines, industrialised biomass or whatever it might be. While I acknowledge they also have the right to a voice, too often it is that voice which dominates and the community and environmental concerns get lost, as do the other social, cultural and heritage interests and perspectives, to the detriment of our natural resources. This is the basis on which I intend to press the amendment.

See this speech in context